CO2CO2CO2CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2
CO2 doesn’t kill millions of people a year, pollution does. It’s time science learned the difference. Some people believe AGW theory was fomented by evil business to divert Leftists’ attention from a real problem of pollution. You would think Leftists would appreciate the opinion of a global warming skeptic that pollution exists and that we can, should and have done much to prevent it in America; but no, not if you do not also buy into the fiction that CO2 is a pollutant too.
“This is not an ‘either-or’ decision: coordinated action on both climate change and air pollution is necessary,” according to a recent Nature article. They follow that up with the inane example of ride-sharing. But, the real problem with the Nature article is its failure to understand it takes more not less energy to prevent pollution. So, conflating CO2-releasing activities – which are required to eliminate pollution – with curbing air pollution obviously is just a subtle way of pushing the global warming alarmism agenda without any serious attempt at addressing the genuine issue: pollution exists and it kills. Instead, the Nature article indulges in a transparent example of stinkin’ thinkin’ like the sort of logic we see being passed off from the Left –e.g., if you believe pollution is a problem you must believe global warming is a problem too.
“Few people realize,” says Judith Schwartz (Can cows help save the planet?), “that there is more carbon in the world’s soil than in the atmosphere and all plant life put together and that cultivated soils are estimated to have lost 50 to 70 percent of their carbon.” What if there were good reasons to worry about more CO2 in the atmosphere? There’s much we could do about it – to the benefit of all – without increasing regulations and shutting down the economy, demonizing capitalism and exporting jobs to China, chilling respect for wealth-creating individual liberty free enterprise and killing off American ingenuity.
To stop the carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we only need to grow the biomass in the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year. Good topsoil contains about ten percent biomass, [Schlesinger, 1977], so a hundredth of an inch of biomass growth means about a tenth of an inch of topsoil. Changes in farming practices such as no-till farming, avoiding the use of the plow, cause biomass to grow at least as fast as this. If we plant crops without plowing the soil, more of the biomass goes into roots which stay in the soil, and less returns to the atmosphere. If we use genetic engineering to put more biomass into roots, we can probably achieve much more rapid growth of topsoil. I conclude from this calculation that the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management, not a problem of meteorology. No computer model of atmosphere and ocean can hope to predict the way we shall manage our land. (Freeman Dyson, Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe)
CO2 is our friend; and, so are cows and wheat. “The point is that Holistic Planned Grazing,” says Schwartz (ibid.), “has reinvigorated the land, and functioning land is potentially storing a lot of carbon (bolstering soil fertility), moderating against temperature extremes (thanks to plant cover and transpiration), holding water (enhancing resilience to floods and droughts) and supporting life (above and below ground).”
“Maddeningly, the same environmentalists who oppose coal in India have also opposed the largest alternative clean and sustainable energy source – nuclear,” says Mark Lynas (India’s coal conundrum…climate or the poor?)… “Solar on its own will not provide sufficient power to run megacities and industrial revolutions. Without nuclear, India will need coal to develop – a lot of it.”
While the Climate Change propaganda machine has busied itself lately by churning out articles about Indians burning of wood and coal for mundane human activities, the ‘green’ Germans are back to building coal-fired power plants and the White House pats itself on the back about reaching an agreement with China that recognizes it will be doing the same thing for decades. The latest fad is to see cheap electricity as putting the squeeze on solar power. Using the pollution-angle to push the anti-CO2 phony science of global warming reminds me of Michener book Journey, which was chopped out of the book Alaska to help size it down a bit. The characters in Journey wanted to go to Alaska to participate in the gold rush but couldn’t bring themselves to cross America — because they were so… English! — but, satisfying their prejudices required them to cross Canada instead. Michener killed them all off. Only their Irish servant survived to look for Yukon’s gold.
The Left is dedicated to ‘Gruber-think’ in betting the public is too stupid to both walk and chew gum (economist Jonathan Gruber being the architect of Obamacare). The Left believes us folks cannot be for fighting pollution while at the same time have a clear understanding that AGW theory is nothing more than a political tool that Leftist Climate Change propagandists use to take over the American economy and grow the government bureaucracy at the expense of the socio-political system – symbolized by Americanism that is based on respect for individual liberty – that stands in the way of bringing about a their socialist Utopia.
AGW theory, as it came to be — an accepted science among Western academics — is an example of celebrating divergent thinking that lacks verification. Hence, there is no genius in the idea of global warming, only belief. As for the actual average temperature of the globe—there hasn’t been any change, going on two decades, some say three. At this stage in the development of climate science, the real discovery is that the role of a healthy skepticism in a search for knowledge is vindicated.
I can fear. I may fear. I might fear global warming.
I shall, no, I will, no, I must fear;
or, perhaps I ought to fear not!
That’s what we want.